This sort of sensationalist title and article are a great part of the reason why models are nerfed by training them to output absurd disclaimers.
Nobody should expect that AI can be relied upon for anything where the cost of an error is catastrophic. This should be obvious, but if it's not, it should be stated ONCE before one gains access to an interface. After that, losing anyone who fails to take notice and suffers as a result is no longer a catastrophe.
I genuinely disagree. It seems to me like the planet is overpopulated, that there is massively unfavourable bias in terms of who reproduces the most and that, imperfect a proxy for intelligence as it may be, lack of common sense of the magnitude in question is a good enough signal to indicate lack of intelligence, which is itself a decent proxy to indicate lack of contribution to society (intelligent does not imply high value, but stupid implies low value).
The notion that human life is precious is a remnant of times when child bearing was risky, life expectancy was short, agriculture was a bunch of mules and a bunch of peasants and medicine was not scientific and we had massive shortages for manual workers.
These days, if we start to lighten up a bit in the lower half of IQ distribution it might be much more of a blessing than a curse.
The problem though is that those marketing this stuff want it to be taken seriously. They have to sell the "I" in AI. They can't tell you "this is a toy and is not intended for real world use for any consequential purpose", because then they wouldn't have a business.
It should be obvious, youre right. But people are being bullshitted and then blamed for believing the bullshit.
This paper is rubbish. Trading is ultimately a partial information, sequential game with an unknown number of participants whose payoff functions (and utilities) are also unknown. Could the market be closer to being efficient if P=NP? Likely. Does P=NP imply efficiency? Not at all.
On top of that, the argument rests on the kind of error you expect to see freshmen making in a discrete math course:
> The basic argument is as follows. For simplicity but without loss of generality, assume there are n past price changes, each of which is either UP (1) or DOWN (0). How many possible trading strategies are there? Suppose we allow a strategy to either be long, short, or neutral to the market. Then the list of all possible strategies includes the strategy which would have been always neutral, the ones that would have been always neutral but for the last day when it would have been either long or short, and so on. In other words, there are three possibilities for each of the n past price changes; there are 3n possible strategies.
There are 2^n possible histories of length n. If a strategy maps each history to one of three positions, there are 3^(2^n) strategies that consider n bits of history.
Is it even theoretically possible to show that markets are efficient on purely theoretical grounds? As a thought experiment, imagine that all human brains have a weird defect that causes them to always ignore some specific kind of information when making pricing decisions, including when they write software dealing with those decisions, and under all other conceivable circumstances. In that case, it seems to me, it would be impossible to decide on purely theoretical grounds that markets are efficient because it strictly depends on the empirical observation that human brains have this weird defect. I could imagine the other way around to work, i.e. that there could be an obstruction to markets being efficient that can be shown to exist on purely theoretical grounds. But no matter what the answer to the second question is, in no case could you arrive at an »if and only if« result without including the empirical observation that brains do not have this weird defect.
The entire premise of this paper is complete nonsense, and serves only to demonstrate the authors complete lack of understanding when it comes to the subject of markets.
"Trading is ultimately a partial information, sequential game with an unknown number of participants whose payoff functions (and utilities) are also unknown."
Markets in general are essentially an infinitely-armed bandit problem where everyone plays whether they know it or not, and resources are allocated over time in a manner not unlike evolution.
You seem to be missing the point. Markets were and possibly still are widely considered weak-form efficient. This is a disproof of that conjecture by showing an inherent contradiction between widely believed properties, ie. P!=NP and markets are weak-form efficient, therefore at least one of them is false.
Edit: "Does P=NP imply efficiency? Not at all." This isn't even a claim of the paper. The paper is claiming the opposite, that market efficiency is true only if P=NP.
I think that the FAA will demand that Amazon runs the test program without hiccups for a while before considering a more realistic test, such as one with the drone outside of the pilot's line of sight, or a flight with bad weather conditions. All in all, it will likely be at least three years before this is rolled out to any actual customers.
Too much noise - this means nothing. This is exactly the reason why serious investors give fund managers money not just based on performance, but on process.
I have trouble taking seriously any "serious investor" that invests in a fund and expects to beat the market. It's been researched to death and it's a losing proposition that doesn't acknowledge the rules of the system.
You can beat the return of a broad market index just not by paying someone else to do it.
I take it neither of you have ever read "What Works on Wall Street"? crack it open, and tell me it's impossible to beat the market.
Just because lazy people advocate buying index funds doesn't mean it's automatically the best choice.
If you're just satisfied with mediocrity, then fine, do it. However one trait of successful humans is that they seek to improve upon the status quo.
Process means nothing if it doesn't have good returns. You can have the best analysts and if something goes wrong, you still have good "process" but you'll have peanuts to show for it.
At the end of the day, what matters? Your returns - that's why people invest.
It's not really that easy. The spread is still not zero and you may still get bad fills if you are slow or if the latency is high enough (assuming that you are taking liquidity).
FX brokers like LMAX, while still targeting retail investors, make money (almost) exclusively on commissions, rather than adjusting the spreads.
Many liquidity provision strategies are also infeasible given the unreliability of the APIs available and the high fees, and in general many intraday strategies that work in other markets and would work with lower commission for bitcoins are devastated by such high fees.
As for stocks, if your volumes are decent, trading costs are negligible. With bitcoin exchanges, that does not seem to be the case...
